Fewer Subs

Rigor Mortis

The Rugby Paper (not the best source) are reporting that World Rugby will discuss reducing the number of subs in the new year. An attempt to make teams have more players who can last 80, thus fitter smaller players. Smaller players leading to less serious collisions.
This is something Keith Wood has called for for a long while.

pickarooney

Any details on which positions they would make non-mandatory? Playing non-specialised forwards or essentially forcing players to continue through minor injuries is likely to offset any potential safety improvement.

Tigerandahalf

Very hard to see where they can do it.

2 props and a hooker are pretty essential now. I don't think we want to go back to a sub prop playing on both sides and scrums collapsing.

2nd row/back row could be possible I guess

You need an outhalf/scrum half sub.

Only 1 outside back as there is.

Is it for money reasons or what?

Burkie1203

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

The Rugby Paper (not the best source) are reporting that World Rugby will discuss reducing the number of subs in the new year. An attempt to make teams have more players who can last 80, thus fitter smaller players. Smaller players leading to less serious collisions.
This is something Keith Wood has called for for a long while.

Players will just feign HIAs.

pickarooney

Smaller squads, longer games, lighter players... I can't see Billy Vunipola liking this.

Smaller squads and more uniform player sizes is s bit leaguey too.

Squidgy Black

Don't really see how this will work.

You're either going to lose one of the front row replacements, which means having a prop try to cover both sides from the bench as you'll need a replacement hooker.

Possibly drop 19/20 in place of a player to cover 2nd row and back row, but one player covering 5 players who potentially could end up injured is never going to work out well.

So realistically you're looking at removing one of the 21/22/23. Which doesn't really match up with the directive of making players last 80 minutes and trying to downsize players as backs are generally (aside from the Islanders) still quite small.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I wonder if we could go down the route of having injury enforced subs only?

irishbucsfan

I thought they already had looked at this.

It won't happen, or at least I'd be very surprised if it does, they only just increased the number of replacements

_Tyrrell_

_Tyrrell_ wrote: »

Don't really see how this will work.

You're either going to lose one of the front row replacements, which means having a prop try to cover both sides from the bench as you'll need a replacement hooker.

Possibly drop 19/20 in place of a player to cover 2nd row and back row, but one player covering 5 players who potentially could end up injured is never going to work out well.

So realistically you're looking at removing one of the 21/22/23. Which doesn't really match up with the directive of making players last 80 minutes and trying to downsize players as backs are generally (aside from the Islanders) still quite small.

They won't do the front row. They've taken too many steps to prevent uncontested scrums and tbf it has worked. I'd say you might need one player covering the back 5 of the pack and one player covering the outside backs or something.

Or else like football you can still have 8 subs but you can only use 6.

Ciaran-Irl

Nancy Quaint Deodorant wrote: »

Or else like football you can still have 8 subs but you can only use 6.

Yeah, that's the answer I'd say. You can have x number on the bench but you can only make y number of subs. You could up the number on the bench to 10 if you wanted, but stipulate max 4 or 5 changes.

Tigerandahalf

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Yeah, that's the answer I'd say. You can have x number on the bench but you can only make y number of subs. You could up the number on the bench to 10 if you wanted, but stipulate max 4 or 5 changes.

That just wouldn't make sense. Does a coach then hold off making changes in case one of his players gets injured.

It would be farcical if all the subs had been used and then a prop got injured and couldn't be replaced.

It would be going back to the bad old amature days where an injured player couldn't be replaced.

I wonder what is the thinking behind it?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

That just wouldn't make sense. Does a coach then hold off making changes in case one of his players gets injured.

It would be farcical if all the subs had been used and then a prop got injured and couldn't be replaced.

It would be going back to the bad old amature days where an injured player couldn't be replaced.

I wonder what is the thinking behind it?

If the limit is 4 subs I suppose you would make 3 tactically and hold 1 for injuries.

Ciaran-Irl

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

That just wouldn't make sense. Does a coach then hold off making changes in case one of his players gets injured.

It would be farcical if all the subs had been used and then a prop got injured and couldn't be replaced.

It would be going back to the bad old amature days where an injured player couldn't be replaced.

I wonder what is the thinking behind it?

That's the whole point. Try to discourage tactical subs. You could fudge it for front row if needed, like they currently do if your substitute prop gets injured.

Tigerandahalf

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

That just wouldn't make sense. Does a coach then hold off making changes in case one of his players gets injured.

It would be farcical if all the subs had been used and then a prop got injured and couldn't be replaced.

It would be going back to the bad old amature days where an injured player couldn't be replaced.

I wonder what is the thinking behind it?

Front row is already an exception if you make a sub and the sub gets injured.

As for the bad old amateur days, right now if your sub winger gets injured well that's just tough luck.

Jump_In_Jack

It might be an idea to have two props on the bench as injury cover only,
And four other subs:
One sub that could cover hooker and openside flanker, (perhaps also blindside flanker)
One sub that could cover lock, (perhaps blindside flanker) and No. 8,
One sub to cover 9, 10 and 15,
And one sub to cover 11 to 14.

That's' 6 subs in total, and it would deter teams from making subs as tactical boosts, instead the emphasis would be injury cover subs.

It might even develop a new breed of specialist subs, utility players that would be more valuable for their ability to cover multiple positions.

joseywhales

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

It might be an idea to have two props on the bench as injury cover only,
And four other subs:
One sub that could cover hooker and openside flanker, (perhaps also blindside flanker)
One sub that could cover lock, (perhaps blindside flanker) and No. 8,
One sub to cover 9, 10 and 15,
And one sub to cover 11 to 14.

That's' 6 subs in total, and it would deter teams from making subs as tactical boosts, instead the emphasis would be injury cover subs.

It might even develop a new breed of specialist subs, utility players that would be more valuable for their ability to cover multiple positions.

Bent and madigan to become worlds most expensive players

I don't really expect any changes to come of this but I'd be about as sure as I can be there'll always be three specialist front row subs and there will be no restrictions on their use.

Losty Dublin

It wasn't too long ago that we saw the Leinster Branch limit junior leagues to 3 subs per squad, and this at a time when the WRU's court case made competent front row cover mandatory within the game. At a more senior level, we only need to look at Ireland vs England in 2012 to show us the merits of having competent safe loose and tight props on the bench, both for safety sake and to ensure a fairer contest at a set scrum.